Without the PowerPoint slides being visible to the Livestream audience, I found it hard to evaluate how the average non-scientist would have understood the presentations—but I will admit to not following many of Jeanson’s evening arguments at all. And some of his generalizations seemed outright leaps without any basis in what he’d just presented. I used to think that I was familiar with most Young Earth Creationist arguments but after hearing Jeanson, I’m not so sure. I found his arguments confusing.
Jeanson kept saying that “we aren’t here to bash anyone” but he seemed determined to take as many shots at Young Earth Creationist Todd Wood as he possibly could. He even brought up Dr. Wood in his initial remarks even though they seemed to be irrelevant to the event topic. I was shocked at this.
Jeanson strategy seems to be focused on convincing non-scientists that science (and scientists) don’t know much and just can’t be trusted.
Yes, if you have winners in these sort of things, I have no doubt our Dr. Venema prevailed. I wish I could hear what the seminary students think about the talks. It shows progress that an event like this was hosted at a Baptist Seminary.
I didn’t listen to most of the broadcast because the internet where I am was too slow for streaming most of of the time. But the part I did catch toward the end seemed to be mostly focused on how science is constantly changing and scientists don’t know anything for sure, therefore everything they claim can be dismissed. That is the familiar refrain I hear all the time from YEC people I know in real life. It’s one of the main reasons I think approaching the YEC worldview from the science side usually doesn’t work unless someone has already personally encountered scientific data that has thrown them off balance and left them with questions.
The other awkward thing was finding that Jeanson’s dialect uses “naughty” in a way not many English-speaking adults I know use the word when talking to other adults.
That caught my attention too – and didn’t throw me too much (unless, of course, I’m wrong!) But my sense in that context was that neither side wanted to come off as being a “basher” or somebody who tries to play “gotcha” while backing the other into a corner. These days we are all hypersensitive to that a-word: Apologetics (or even ‘Aggressive Apologetics’ if you want to be awarded double demerits) in any public forum. So if either side walked close to that line – bringing up that reserve argument that they themselves deem to be especially withering or even fatal to the other side – they felt an obligatory apology (of the other sort!) was necessary. Hence Jeanson occasionally feeling ‘naughty’. I suspect Dennis also probably held back on much where he could have pressed, but had obvious time constraints and his own obligatory courtesies of a similar sort.
[How can you tell a Canadian extrovert from an introvert? The extrovert stares at your shoes instead of his own.] Sorry – you may be wondering what brought that to my mind. I was just thinking how disappointing these debates must be for those who want U.S.A style “professional wrestling mania” conquests in the ring. What!!? You mean I have to listen and think about it to tease apart who might be getting closer to truth? Would at least just one body slam onto the stage have been too much to ask, Dennis?
I’m not sure that this generalization is universally true about all vestigial occurrences. Karl Giberson frequently mentioned the rare occurrence of a human being born with not just a distorted expression of a tail, but sometimes with a fully working one!
Is there some other function you think that tail is stealthily fulfilling?
Huh!!! All these years, and this has never occurred to me ! That’s a pretty good observation!
While I understood that to make a female from a male cell would only require eliminating the “Y” and doubling the “X” … I never drew it out to the logical consequences - - that Adam was marrying a feminized clone!
But of course, just like YECs can say the giant Ark was seaworthy because God made the boat seaworthy (miraculously) … YEC’s can also say God took Adam’s genetics, and completely revised them into a different (but still maximally complementary) configuration of genes.
And the point of all that seems to be: It it is not proper to read Genesis as science. The original author and audience had no concept of cloning and chromosomes, so it has no meaning in that context. As one of the speakers at the conference suggested, I suspect if you started taking about incest and cloning and self-mating or whatever to the ancient audience, they would ask if you were reading the same story. They might remind you that while the scriptures say while all the fruit was good for eating, watch out for the funny mushrooms.
In other contexts I can be quite testy - I am dutch after all - but I’ve learned to be relaxed during these things. It makes it much easier to focus and stay on track.
I wonder that too. I recently had meetings at that Seminary, and I stayed there for a few days. But as this was not related to the seminary, I didn’t meet any students. I did wonder though where they stood on this whole area. I am glad to see that they have agreed to host this.
Is this a US reaction to this word? Here in the UK, I haven’t come across any aversion to the word (though it has to be explained!) I’m leading an apologetics course in my church - and that does not mean I’m pushing a particular view. I am encouraging people to think through their faith, to be respectful of others and to then not miss the real point while arguing! That is what I mean by apologetics. We call it “Confidence in the Truth” - and it includes the idea that science and theology can support each other so we don’t have to be embarrassed by any apparent conflict. We just have to consider rethinking our assumptions!
I don’t know if you would get notification about my reply since I’m not sure I started the new thread correctly. But I did reply to you in “Apologetics and Religion in the public square”.
Thanks for your thoughts and continued conversation!
BTW, I use the word “evangelical” - in the UK, that usually covers charismatic churches too. It really means “enthusiastic about what we believe + basic truths” - it doesn’t mean holding a certain doctrinal position on various controversial topics. But the use of this word is changing too!
